Below is Paul Kent's article:
"He is a young man and he remains one of the great parasites of our society.
His cause in life, it seems, is to create misery for others. It is recommended I not name this young man who no longer works and spends much of his insurance payout on poker machines during the week.
Pity, because he is worth avoiding.
After Christmas he took his money and travelled north to Byron Bay where he heard many of the young men he sees around Sydney were holidaying and so, of course, one night he invited himself along to the pub where they were gathered.
He could not help himself once there.
He got into an argument with a young woman and knocked her over. Such acts are okay in this young man’s world. He will probably argue she had it coming.
She got up, though, and here is where it begins to get cloudy.
I cannot tell you what the room count looked like. How many young men were there or what sort of physical shape they were in, or how an act like his is generally received and who even saw.
Some men can handle themselves and many cannot.
But one of them collared him and dragged him down the pub’s stairs and tossed him outside.
This one was more than capable.
His name is Victor Radley.
The young man hung around outside for several minutes, chest out impressively and with who knows what else going on, when Radley decided he needed to remove him for good.
Two versions exist over what happened next. One is that Radley tackled him, the other that Radley headbutted him.
The version heard here is that Radley tackled him in the same style Jimmy Graham hit Sam Burgess in the opening tackle of the 2014 grand final, high and a lot of shoulder, but his forehead collected him in the cheek and closed his eye nicely.
He left soon after that with no more trouble, understandably, but not before rising from the concrete believing he had what was a winning lottery ticket in his hand.
His next piece of business was to contact the Sydney Roosters and request payment for his silence.
The Roosters hung up the phone on him.
Instead the Roosters reported it to the NRL’s Integrity Unit and, this week, the verdict dropped. The NRL, after interviewing the young man and other witnesses, suspended
Radley for two games and gave him a $20,000 fine.
It is excessive. It has little room for compassion or understanding as the NRL, intent on this unachievable quality called consistency, instead apply a penalty that is way too severe but which has been applied before.
The game does not seem to understand there is a difference between consistency and fairness. They are not one and the same.
Radley should be playing against Manly on Saturday night.
He should be applauded for taking a stance that is difficult to argue for nowadays but will forever remain correct. A young woman was attacked and the offender was dealt with.
Unfortunately, though, words like chivalry and character are old-fashioned now, a punchline for the progressives.
It is hard to understand what environment the game is trying to create. What will the job look like once it is done?
It is a dreary world containing a player who, witnessing a woman being assaulted, walks away because he will be suspended if he intervenes.
The NRL’s line was that Radley had a choice.
Once outside, it goes, the young man should have been left to go carry on however he liked. Radley should not have tackled him.
It is difficult, almost unobtainable. In the heat of it all, the blood up, players are now also expected to possess a lawman’s sensibility as well.
Now I must extricate myself, they must say. Justice now looks very different.
There seems to be very few people inside the NRL who have ever stepped off the footpath long enough to understand what a street fight looks like.
Street fights are not fought under gentlemen’s rules.
It was the same
absurd reasoning to punish Corey Norman after he and James Segeyaro and their female friends were set upon by four drunk men, not long heaved out of a nearby club for anti-social behaviour, who began baiting them with racist insults before escalating it.
In both instances the NRL accepted their initial involvement but claimed there was a point the players should have walked away and so that was why there was punishment.
The NRL has no clue that violent young men don’t let other men simply walk away from a fight. If they have enough in them to pick they have enough in them to go on with it.
If Norman simply walked away after the first incident it would be seen as a sign of weakness, encouragement for his aggressors.
Instead, two against four, he took the advantage when he had it.
Radley, similarly, did not wait around to see how this brave young man would respond. He was certainly still hanging around, waiting for something.
The Roosters argued for Radley but agreed there was a point, since the young man was outside, he could have acted differently.
But what of the real injustice? Of the poor woman inside?
Clubs are built around trying to mould young men with solid values. They spend every week instilling values like respect and understanding even as the line between old values and new understandings increasingly push them apart.
The game has never worked harder to respect and acknowledge women than it does now. From Women In League round to anti-violence campaigns.
But it seems it must be done only in a comfortable environment. When it suits.
Radley certainly knew the potential cost.
The Roosters speak often about the necessity to understand they are held to different standards.
“Our line isn’t the legal line,” coach Trent Robinson tells them. “We’re held to a higher standard.”
Some might say that standard, the true standard, as the physically capable, is what got upheld at a pub in Byron Bay after Christmas."
